Politics
A year after Newsom called for constitutional amendment on gun safety, no other states have joined him
On NBC’s “Today” show last June, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a proposal that seemed politically impossible from the start: Convincing two-thirds of state legislatures in America to officially call for a constitutional convention to adopt national gun safety laws.
Newsom didn’t see it that way.
“It’s possible because their constituency demands it,” Newsom said when the interviewer pointed out that more than half the states are controlled by Republicans who generally oppose gun restrictions.
One year later, no other state has joined Newsom’s fight.
The inability to advance the gun safety proposal beyond California, even in other Democratic-controlled states, suggests that — so far at least — Newsom’s plan was more flash than substance.
The governor’s pitch inspired a round of media coverage last year that elevated his national profile as a Democrat trying to do something about mass shootings and other gun violence. Newsom pointed to findings of a Fox News Poll that found overwhelming voter support for the restrictions.
The gun initiative has given him another opportunity to reach out to voters outside of California, widening his national appeal for a potential White House run in the future and creating an opportunity to expand his database of political supporters before his time as governor ends in two years.
Yet Newsom must still contend with the stubborn politics of the 2nd Amendment. Many lawmakers at the national and state level are reluctant to buck a powerful gun lobby and risk being accused of trying to dilute the constitutional right to bear arms.
The governor said he expected the slow progress, adding that support for a constitutional amendment on gun control could take 20 years to catch on.
“Come on, no one was naive about this,” Newsom said in a recent interview with The Times. “This has been done before, but not recently. It will have its fits and starts. It will have its champions and will have its setbacks.”
So far, the setbacks have been easier to spot.
Newsom’s plan would require two-thirds of states to pass resolutions supporting a constitutional convention. Through the convention, new federal gun safety measures would have to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. Newsom is calling for states to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires universal background checks on gun purchases and raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. The governor wants the gathering of states to also result in a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases and to prohibit the sale of assault weapons to the public.
California lawmakers passed a resolution in September calling for a constitutional convention to consider the proposal.
The governor and his political aides began reaching out to other states after the California Legislature acted, hoping to find lawmakers around the country with compelling personal stories to lead the effort.
Some states have part-time Legislatures, which meet for only a few months annually or every other year, and lawmakers told Newsom’s aides it wasn’t feasible to pass a resolution this year, an advisor to the governor said. In other states, legislators who advocate for gun control had already committed to their bill packages for 2024.
“And others specifically said, ‘Not right now,’ I mean, there’s electoral issues,” Newsom said.
Newsom said he’s had “dozens of conversations,” but the governor and his political staff declined to name any states or individuals they have spoken with.
He said he’s discussed the constitutional amendment in every state he’s visited through his Campaign for Democracy, a political action committee that he formed to raise money for Democrats and to fight Republicans nationally in the 2024 election.
“So we’re talking to legislative leaders in all those red states,” Newsom said.
Last year, a few weeks after launching his call for the constitutional convention, Newsom went to Idaho to meet with Democrats and fund-raise for Biden’s reelection through his political action committee.
Democrat Melissa Winthrow, the minority leader in the Idaho state Senate, said she never heard from the California governor.
“No, I have not spoken to Gov. Newsom,” Winthrow said. “I’m not aware of if he’s been in communication with anybody. I have not.”
Winthrow doesn’t see how Newsom’s proposal has a chance of passing in Idaho.
“This is a supermajority red state, probably one of the most conservative in the country, with the strictest abortion bans and so forth,” she said. “So you’re not going to see any movement to restrict anything with firearms.”
Winthrow said she’s not sure she could support Newsom’s resolution because if a convention ever took place, her state would be represented by Republicans who would gut any amendment to restrict guns. In California, some Democrats declined to back the measure after legal scholars warned that states might be able to take up other issues beyond the scope of Newsom’s gun amendment at a constitutional convention.
There also are political realities in states like Idaho, where gun culture is so ingrained that Democrats largely avoid campaigning on the issue. Winthrow has introduced legislation to keep firearms from people convicted of domestic abuse and another bill to keep firearms from convicted pedophiles. Both failed.
She can’t imagine a scenario where Newsom’s proposal gains traction.
“There’s just no way the state is going to agree to that. It just isn’t going to happen. As I’ve described, the political climate here is such that it just wouldn’t even be on the table,” Winthrow said. “They would laugh.”
Newsom said he knew his proposal might not play well in some GOP-controlled states. But there are no signs it’s taken off in blue states either.
Despite Newsom’s cooperation with the Democratic leaders of other West Coast states on abortion access and curbing climate change, neither Oregon nor Washington have picked up the mantle of his gun control amendment.
“There has been no talk here of doing something similar,” said Aaron Wasser, a spokesman for Washington state Senate Democrats.
Washington House Speaker Laurie Jinkins “has not had any discussions with Gov. Newsom about this topic,” said her spokesperson Jen Waldref.
“This is not a concept that has been considered by the Oregon Legislature,” said Lucas Bezerra, spokesman for Oregon House Democrats.
Newsom did not directly answer questions about whether a nationwide campaign to restrict guns could hurt Biden’s reelection bid if Republicans responded by claiming Democrats are out to take away firearms. The governor said other issues, such as inflation, the cost of living and the economy were more top of mind to voters.
Newsom reiterated that his proposal would preserve the right of Americans to bear arms and focus strictly on gun safety that most Americans support. Newsom was inspired by inaction in Congress and California’s own efforts to pass gun control laws that have been struck down by federal courts.
“This was done very thoughtfully in the context of where things actually are, and where the American people are in every state,” Newsom said.
Newsom’s political advisor said lawmakers in many states are focused on their own elections or the presidential race this year, forcing the governor’s team to reevaluate their strategy and timetable.
Newsom’s team shifted focus to building support on the local level this year before ramping up their effort in 2025.
“Since California passed the amendment last year, the campaign has been building a grassroots army of activists who will support a national right to safety in states across the country and working with legislators on bill introductions for 2025 when states begin a new legislative session,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Newsom.
Click said the campaign has “signed up over a million Americans to support the right to safety in their states.” More than 1,500 have completed volunteer training to help in their states and 10,000 volunteers will be trained by early 2025 when the bill introductions begin, he said.
Newsom’s Campaign for Democracy, his national political committee, sent out an email to its fundraising list in early May seeking volunteers.
The goal for volunteers laid out in the email was two-fold: To turn out voters across the country who will elect Democrats and get the Right to Safety amendment introduced in more states next year.
But the odds of Newsom building a successful movement are slim, because it’s so difficult to amend the Constitution, said University of Texas law school professor Sanford Levinson.
“He’s swimming upstream in terms of trying to persuade people that a constitutional amendment regarding guns is going to be a very fruitful way of spending their time,” Levinson said.
“No knowledgeable person about contemporary politics could really believe that that proposal is going to take off nationally with other state legislatures.”
Newsom’s pitch echoes a similar move the governor of Texas once made from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
In 2016, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called for a convention of the states to make nine amendments to the U.S. constitution. They included a slew of conservative goals to limit federal power and require a balanced federal budget, which Abbott detailed in a 92-page plan.
The Texas Legislature passed the resolution the next year. But not much happened after that.
“He obviously thought that it might give him some political mileage,” Levinson said. “And it clearly didn’t.”
Politics
How the Gaza Cease-Fire Deal United Teams Biden and Trump
When President-elect Donald J. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Saturday to pressure him on a cease-fire deal in Gaza, there was someone on the speakerphone: Brett H. McGurk, President Biden’s longtime Mideast negotiator.
It was a vivid example of cooperation between two men representing bitter political rivals whose relationship has been best described as poisonous. Rarely if ever have teams of current and new presidents of different parties worked together at such a high-stakes moment, with the fate of American lives and the future of a devastating war hanging in the balance.
Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden publicly claimed credit for the breakthrough.
“This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site even before the deal was formally announced in the Middle East.
At the White House, Mr. Biden told reporters that his administration had worked tirelessly for months to convince the two sides to halt the fighting. He called it “one of the toughest negotiations I’ve ever experienced” and gave credit to “an extraordinary team of American diplomats who have worked nonstop for months to get this done.”
As he left the room, a reporter asked Mr. Biden, “Who gets credit for this, Mr. President, you or Trump?” Mr. Biden stopped, turned around and smiled.
“Is that a joke?” he asked.
But despite the tension between the current president and the next one, their representatives in the Middle East described a cooperative working relationship in the weeks since Election Day.
“Brett is in the lead,” Mr. Witkoff said last week at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club in Florida, describing the working relationship. That description was accurate by all accounts, even if it did not match what Mr. Trump had said moments before in one of several statements describing his negotiators as critical players.
In fact, Mr. Trump’s threat that “all hell” would break loose if no deal was reached before his inauguration on Monday might have helped motivate Hamas’s leadership to make final decisions. But people familiar with the negotiations said the announcement on Wednesday of a deal to temporarily end hostilities in Gaza was the result of months of work by Mr. McGurk in the Middle East, capped off by several weeks of carefully coordinated efforts by Mr. Witkoff.
Mr. Witkoff, 67, a blunt real estate investor from the Bronx, has largely planted himself in Qatar for the negotiations, knowing that whatever Mr. McGurk negotiated, he would have to execute. In fact, the 33 hostages who will be released under the cease-fire deal may not see freedom until Inauguration Day or after. The cease-fire would expire six weeks later, unless Phase 2 of the agreement kicks in.
By design, the goal was to send a unified message that the fighting must end and the hostages held by Hamas must be released. One person familiar with the negotiations, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions, said Mr. McGurk was more involved in hammering out details of the agreement, while Mr. Witkoff’s role was to make clear that Mr. Trump wanted a deal by the time he is inaugurated.
The president-elect has also been setting some early parameters in his dealings with Mr. Netanyahu — who, for all his support of Mr. Trump in the election, was perceived by the Trump camp as dragging his feet on a deal. Mr. Witkoff flew to to Israel from Doha on Saturday — despite the Sabbath — to underscore the message that Mr. Netanyahu had to get on board.
Mr. Witkoff’s work, including the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, helped Mr. McGurk and the Biden administration to put pressure on both sides during the negotiation, according to the person familiar with the talks.
It was not at all clear that such an arrangement would work in the days immediately after Mr. Trump won a second term.
He and Mr. Biden have barely talked in recent weeks, their already acrimonious relationship weighed down by the Trump team’s determination to clean out the White House career staff and the Biden team issuing last-minute orders to box in the new administration.
In his remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Biden acknowledged some level of cooperation and respect between their aides.
“This deal was developed and negotiated under my administration, but its terms will be implemented for the most part by the next administration,” Mr. Biden told reporters. “In these past few days, we’ve been speaking as one team.”
But he did not give any more credit to Mr. Trump for helping the effort. For his part, the president-elect said he was “thrilled” that the American hostages would be released, but he did not mention Mr. Biden or the work of the current administration.
“We have achieved so much without even being in the White House,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Just imagine all of the wonderful things that will happen when I return to the White House, and my Administration is fully confirmed, so they can secure more Victories for the United States!”
Both leaders left it to staff members to describe the way they had worked together on the Gaza negotiations.
A person familiar with that effort said a close partnership between Mr. McGurk and Mr. Witkoff was part of an “incredibly effective” process by which the Biden administration finalized a deal that the Trump administration would have to oversee.
That cooperation began soon after Mr. Trump won the election and named Mr. Witkoff to be his envoy to the region. Biden administration officials have said they believe the momentum for a deal began before that, when Mr. Biden helped broker a separate agreement to end fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. That isolated Hamas and helped persuade the group that a cease-fire was in its interests, according to Biden officials.
Politics
Stephen Miller preps House Republicans for Trump's immigration overhaul in closed-door meeting
President-elect Trump’s top aide on immigration and the border spoke with House Republicans during a roughly hour-long meeting Wednesday.
Lawmakers who left the room hailed Stephen Miller, who was tapped to be U.S. Homeland Security adviser in the new Trump administration, as a brilliant policy mind.
Two sources present for the discussions told Fox News Digital Miller talked about the need to scale up the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workforce, which is noteworthy given Trump’s promise to execute mass deportations when he returns to office.
Miller also discussed ways to cut federal funds going toward sanctuary cities and states, a cash flow that Republicans had previously promised to target if they were to control the levers of power in Washington.
COLORADO MAYOR SPEAKS OUT AFTER VIDEO OF ARMED VENEZUELAN GANG IN APARTMENT GOES VIRAL: ‘FAILED POLICY’
The strategy meeting comes as congressional Republicans are preparing for a massive conservative policy overhaul through the budget reconciliation process. By lowering the threshold for passage in the Senate from 60 votes to 51, reconciliation allows the party controlling Congress and the White House to pass broad policy changes — provided they deal with budgetary and other fiscal matters.
The sources told Fox News Digital Miller’s portion of the meeting partly focused on what border and immigration policies could go into a reconciliation package and what kind of funding Congress would need to appropriate.
1.4 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN US HAVE BEEN ORDERED DEPORTED, BUT HAVE YET TO BE REMOVED: OFFICIAL
The sources said Miller told Republicans the incoming Trump administration understood the president-elect’s border and immigration goals were “probably not going to get a lot” of Democratic votes and that “those more controversial things would need to be in reconciliation.” More bipartisan initiatives could be passed during the regular process, the sources added.
A House GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital of an understanding that Congress would follow Trump’s lead.
“I think we’re going to see a slew of executive orders early, and that is going to be helpful to separate from what we have to do legislatively,” the lawmaker said.
One source in the room said Miller emphasized the importance of messaging, adding that “nothing matters if we don’t get our message out to the American people.”
Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital Miller discussed “low-hanging fruit” that Trump could tackle by executive order, mentioning “deportation” as a possibility.
“Tax stuff, that’s going to take some time,” Norman said.
Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., declined to go into specifics about the meeting but told Fox News Digital the discussion focused on “illegal immigration and how that’s going to be curbed … to bring commonsense solutions to the program.”
HOUSE DOGE CAUCUS EYES FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS IN NEW GOAL-SETTING MEMO
“I had a couple of questions about the cost to American taxpayers if we don’t repatriate some 12 million illegal aliens who the Biden administration has let into our country,” Alford said.
Miller declined to answer reporters’ questions when he left the room.
He was invited to address the Republican Study Committee led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, the House GOP’s largest caucus, which acts as a conservative think tank of sorts for the rest of the House Republican Conference.
House GOP leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., were not in attendance, nor were they expected.
Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., the group’s previous chairman, said there was “nothing new” said during the meeting, adding it was an opportunity for Trump’s aides to address the House GOP.
Trump and his aides have already paid heavy attention to congressional Republicans.
Several of his incoming White House aides are in regular contact with top GOP lawmakers. Trump personally invited several groups of House Republicans to Mar-a-Lago last weekend.
Politics
Supreme Court leans in favor of state-enforced age limits on porn websites
WASHINGTON — Thanks to the internet and smartphones, children today have instant access to vast amounts of online pornography, much of it graphic, violent and degrading, Texas state attorneys told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
They urged justices to restore the rules of an earlier era, when X-rated theaters and bookstores had an adults-only policy.
Last year, Texas enacted an age-verification law that requires pornographic websites to confirm their users are 18 or older.
Lawyers for 23 other Republican-led states joined in support of Texas, saying they have or plan to adopt similar measures.
The court’s conservative justices signaled they are prepared to uphold these new laws.
They noted that age-verification rules are now common for online gambling and for buying alcohol or tobacco online.
But more importantly, they pointed to the dramatic change in technology and the easy availability of hardcore pornography.
We are “in an entirely different era,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “The technological access to pornography has exploded.”
He said that warrants reconsidering rulings from decades past that invoked the 1st Amendment to strike down anti-pornography measures.
In one such ruling, the court in 2004 said parents and librarians could use filtering software to protect children from pornography.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said parents have long known that “filtering” software is not effective in protecting children. “Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones and computers,” she said. “I can say from personal experience … content filtering isn’t working.”
In the past, she said the court had no problem upholding laws that prevent bookstores from selling sexually explicit books or magazine to children or teens.
She questioned why online porn should be treated differently.
Washington attorney Derek Shaffer, who represented the adult entertainment industry that challenged the Texas law on 1st Amendment grounds, argued the Texas law could have a “chilling effect” on adult customers who may be leery of providing personal information needed to verify age and identity.
Texas state solicitor Aaron Nielsen said the new age-verification systems allow customers to confirm their age online without directly contacting a particular website.
“Age verification is simple, safe and common,” he said.
The justices and the attorneys spent most of their time on what free speech standard should apply to such a law.
In the past, the court said anti-pornography laws must be viewed with “strict scrutiny.” Usually, that resulted in narrowing or striking down such laws.
By contrast, the 5th Circuit Court allowed the Texas law to take effect because it was a “rational” means of protecting children.
Several of the justices said they would vote to uphold the Texas law, but they may also agree to send it back to the 5th Circuit Court for a second hearing.
Republican-led states pointed to a growing pornography problem.
“The average child is exposed to internet pornography while still in elementary school,” wrote state attorneys for Ohio and Indiana. “Pornography websites receive more traffic in the U.S. than social media platforms Instagram, TikTok, Netflix, and Pinterest combined.”
-
Technology6 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science4 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology1 week ago
Las Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies’ Review: Thai Oscar Entry Is a Disarmingly Sentimental Tear-Jerker
-
Health1 week ago
Michael J. Fox honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom for Parkinson’s research efforts
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Movie Review: Millennials try to buy-in or opt-out of the “American Meltdown”
-
News1 week ago
Photos: Pacific Palisades Wildfire Engulfs Homes in an L.A. Neighborhood
-
World1 week ago
Trial Starts for Nicolas Sarkozy in Libya Election Case